Her Twitter account has also been privated.

None of these actions should be considered unusual from a woman (and probably a man, too) who was involved in a decision the result of which (with or without knowing the context) would piss off a lot of men. The only social media it's safe to leave open are those that allow shutting down of all DMs, and don't divulge information which could identify the physical places she habituates.

No this can definitely be considered unusual, and it's misguided to paint it as angry men online. She participated in a decision that affects all of us (leadership/alignment of AI) and is now attempting to hide from the consistences of that participation (privatizing profile and change the name). You don't get to make big decisions and then hide under a rock.

You obviously haven't paid attention to the sorts of threats women who make decisions that piss off "bros" are subjected to. She isn't hiding under a rock through these actions (though may be doing things in the real world to hide). These actions just proactively limit being DMed threats.

Even without threats, no one wants to deal with the thousands of spur-of-the-moment DMs and emails that such a notable action would prompt. It's a good idea to go offline until things cool down. Any necessary statements can be made through channels, and so can the answers to questions.

"Any necessary statements can be made through channels"

you have to admin though, she made a highly controversial decision, and instead of confronting it and saying something through her own channel, she changed the name of the channel and made it private. And we're supposed to assume this is because men (specifically) are mean. Respectfully, feels like a bad take.

We technically don't even know if she voted for the expulsion, and we probably never will. 3-to-1 would work.

As an active board member she has certain legal obligations at this moment. This is why the Try Guys dragged their feet on making public statements about Ned Fulmer's expulsion from the company, and when they did finally make a statement did so as a group and explicitly stated that they couldn't talk about certain things.

OpenAI is governed by the board of the OpenAI Nonprofit, comprised of OpenAI Global, LLC employees Greg Brockman (Chairman & President), Ilya Sutskever (Chief Scientist), and Sam Altman (CEO), and non-employees Adam D’Angelo, Tasha McCauley, Helen Toner.

There were 6 on the board until noon today. Assuming Sam and Greg did not vote, that leaves 4. If 3 voted out, that would have been a split decision. I don't think a 50% decision would have it, I believe all 4 of the remaining members voted out.

That leaves us wondering what the hell happened, and how it came to this? It's not angry tech bros, it's folks who feel OpenAI is a great company poised to lead AI into a bright future with principles and a purpose higher than profit. And now Sam and Greg are gone.

And poof, this human who happens to be female is gone. This human needed to have a statement ready, we're all trying to DM them the same question, why?